However, when confronted by the Echo about our findings he brushed off concerns.

HQ: Thorn in the side is registered to this accountants address

Mr Farage, who earns a £78,000 salary, plus allowances as an MEP, set up Thorn in the Side in 2011 to receive income of up to £4,000 a month from sidelines in media appearances and work on the lecture circuit.

However, he denies he is avoiding paying his fair share of tax.

He said: “This firm of accountants did a lot of business with City brokerage companies and was recommended to me.

“No one voluntarily pays any additional income to the Inland Revenue. Most forms of legal tax avoidance are OK, but clearly some are not.”

Mr Farage is the company’s sole director and shareholder and the firm is registered to the address of his accountants Buckley Watson, in Broadway, Leigh.

If he paid tax on the money as personal income it would be liable for a 40 per cent rate, plus national insurance.

By having money paid into a limited company it is subject to corporation tax of just 20 per cent.

Rehash: Nigel Farage

He added: “This is a rehash of old allegations.

“To receive money personally, I have to pay 40 per cent.

“Corporation tax at 20 per cent is for retained profits (kept in the company) only, therefore the criticism is ridiculous.”

In 2012/13, Thorn in the Side accounts show it had £62,825 in the bank and owed £21,548 to creditors.

It reported a profit of £45,488, plus Mr Farage paid himself a £7,500 dividend.

Taxed as personal earnings, this would have led to £21,883 tax and national insurance at the 40 per cent rate. But by paying corporation and dividend tax instead, the bill would be £11,497 – a total saving for the year of £10,386.

Register of interests: Mr Farage's EU record of the firm

A former Southend accountant, who would not be named, said paying wages into a limited company could undoubtedly reduce a director’s tax bill.

He said: “There is very little between tax planning and tax avoidance. Money can be built up as retained profits in a company and only subject to 20 per cent tax.

“Money can then be loaned to the director, which does not incur any tax, or taken out as dividends over a period at lower tax rates than income tax.”

Buckley Watson said its company was involved in “tax planning”, rather than “avoidance”

and has handled accounts for Mr Farage since 2003.

Widespread use: Spencer Watson

Spencer Watson, the firm’s founder, said using “personal service companies”

to reduce tax were common place.

He said: “They are used by millions of individuals in the UK to operate their businesses so as to protect their personal assets and to plan their taxes sensibly.

This s h o u l d not be confused with any form of tax avoidance.

“My firm does not promote or use any tax avoidance scheme and never has done.”

Farage Limited set up by Mr Farage is still paying off a £125,650 tax debt.

Tax bill: Farage Limited

Farage Limited, registered to Buckley Watson Accountants in Broadway, Leigh, was set up by Mr Farage, 50, and his commodities trader brother Andrew Farage, 47, in 2003.

In March 2011, HMRC lodged a High Court petition to wind the company up over the unpaid bill.

However, legal action was withdrawn five months later after the firm entered into a “voluntary arrangement” to pay it off in instalments.

Papers filed at Companies House last August show it is up to date with these.

However, Mr Farage came under fire over the company last summer after the Daily Mirror revealed soon after setting it up, he transferred his 33 per cent shareholding in the firm to an offshore trust (Farage Family Educational Trust) on the tax haven of the Isle of Man.

He apologised for “the mistake” and said he had never drawn anymoney from the trust.

Apology: Daily Mirror probe

In February 2012, Nigel Farage resigned as company secretary. It has been run by Andrew’s wife Wendy Farage, 40, since January.

Nigel Farage told the Echo: “The Inland Revenue are being repaid. Farage Trust, of which I was not a beneficiary, received no income from Farage Ltd. The Trust is dissolved.”

Using personal service firms to reduce tax is not illegal, but their use has been criticised as immoral and a way of avoiding tax.

By paying wages into a company rather than to the individual, they can pay corporation tax of 20 per cent on profits held by the firm, instead of the 40 to 50 per cent tax bands high earners would otherwise face.

In May 2012, Ed Lester resigned as chief executive of the Student Loans Company after it was revealed he was funneling his £182,000 pay and pension package into a personal service company.

No vote: ken Livingstone

Ken Livingstone was also criticised during the 2012 London mayoral race for using a personal service company. This came after he had said: “No one should be allowed to vote in a British election, let alone sit in Parliament, unless they pay their full share of tax”.

The BBC was heavily criticised for paying 3,000 freelancers through personal service firms.

Andy Silvester, of the Taxpayers Alliance, said: “Until the system is simplified, people will continue to look for – and find – ways to minimise their tax bill. Politicians need to fix the system, not look for loopholes.”

andyh wrote:
“Until the system is simplified, people will continue to look for – and find – ways to minimise their tax bill. Politicians need to fix the system, not look for loopholes.” Precisely.

Problem is that as a loophole is closed, very clever accountants open another.
The system is quite simple if you do not look for a way of paying less of your fair share.

[quote][p][bold]andyh[/bold] wrote:
“Until the system is simplified, people will continue to look for – and find – ways to minimise their tax bill. Politicians need to fix the system, not look for loopholes.” Precisely.[/p][/quote]Problem is that as a loophole is closed, very clever accountants open another.
The system is quite simple if you do not look for a way of paying less of your fair share.GeneralGrb

andyh wrote:
“Until the system is simplified, people will continue to look for – and find – ways to minimise their tax bill. Politicians need to fix the system, not look for loopholes.” Precisely.

Problem is that as a loophole is closed, very clever accountants open another.
The system is quite simple if you do not look for a way of paying less of your fair share.

this is not a loophole. practically every single self employed individual in the country pay themselves this way. it is perfectly legal. it is tax efficient - why is tax avoidance even being mentioned?

[quote][p][bold]GeneralGrb[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]andyh[/bold] wrote:
“Until the system is simplified, people will continue to look for – and find – ways to minimise their tax bill. Politicians need to fix the system, not look for loopholes.” Precisely.[/p][/quote]Problem is that as a loophole is closed, very clever accountants open another.
The system is quite simple if you do not look for a way of paying less of your fair share.[/p][/quote]this is not a loophole. practically every single self employed individual in the country pay themselves this way. it is perfectly legal. it is tax efficient - why is tax avoidance even being mentioned?profondo asbo

the citizen wrote:
At last....a piece of investigative journalism from the Echo...... keep it up.

the headline is misleading because tax avoidance schemes are very different from what is considered general practice amongst the self employed.

[quote][p][bold]the citizen[/bold] wrote:
At last....a piece of investigative journalism from the Echo...... keep it up.[/p][/quote]the headline is misleading because tax avoidance schemes are very different from what is considered general practice amongst the self employed.profondo asbo

So the echo now alienates themselves from UKIP supporters by joining in with the pathetic smear campaign that backfired so wonderfully for the national papers before the euro elections. Im glad i dont pay for this rubbish.

So the echo now alienates themselves from UKIP supporters by joining in with the pathetic smear campaign that backfired so wonderfully for the national papers before the euro elections. Im glad i dont pay for this rubbish.DAGASMAN

no one wants to pay more tax than they have to, if its not illegal its a non story........ if the goverment, through HMRC want to implement immpossibly complex tax regimes, then all this avoidance and clever accounting is the ineveitable end result.....

no one wants to pay more tax than they have to, if its not illegal its a non story........ if the goverment, through HMRC want to implement immpossibly complex tax regimes, then all this avoidance and clever accounting is the ineveitable end result.....pembury53

Robin Reliant wrote:
wonder why this story is open to comments but the one regarding paying back wrongfully claimed legal aid by the wealthy traveller lady is closed, it does not make sense.

You seem to be missing the point; one article is about paying money back and the other about paying as little as possible..two different stories about different people in different circumstances...does that make sense now?

[quote][p][bold]Robin Reliant[/bold] wrote:
wonder why this story is open to comments but the one regarding paying back wrongfully claimed legal aid by the wealthy traveller lady is closed, it does not make sense.[/p][/quote]You seem to be missing the point; one article is about paying money back and the other about paying as little as possible..two different stories about different people in different circumstances...does that make sense now?ThisYear

andyh wrote: “Until the system is simplified, people will continue to look for – and find – ways to minimise their tax bill. Politicians need to fix the system, not look for loopholes.” Precisely.

Problem is that as a loophole is closed, very clever accountants open another. The system is quite simple if you do not look for a way of paying less of your fair share.

this is not a loophole. practically every single self employed individual in the country pay themselves this way. it is perfectly legal. it is tax efficient - why is tax avoidance even being mentioned?

UKIP leader has previously stated - people who avoid tax are the “common enemy”

So although you may think avoidance even if legal is ok Mr Farage doesn't, yet he appears to contradict himself by doing the same thing that is "a problem". So why would we trust him on other issues?

[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]GeneralGrb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andyh[/bold] wrote: “Until the system is simplified, people will continue to look for – and find – ways to minimise their tax bill. Politicians need to fix the system, not look for loopholes.” Precisely.[/p][/quote]Problem is that as a loophole is closed, very clever accountants open another. The system is quite simple if you do not look for a way of paying less of your fair share.[/p][/quote]this is not a loophole. practically every single self employed individual in the country pay themselves this way. it is perfectly legal. it is tax efficient - why is tax avoidance even being mentioned?[/p][/quote]UKIP leader has previously stated - people who avoid tax are the “common enemy”
and branded rich people and successful companies avoiding tax “a problem”.
So although you may think avoidance even if legal is ok Mr Farage doesn't, yet he appears to contradict himself by doing the same thing that is "a problem". So why would we trust him on other issues?GeneralGrb

andyh wrote:
“Until the system is simplified, people will continue to look for – and find – ways to minimise their tax bill. Politicians need to fix the system, not look for loopholes.” Precisely.

Problem is that as a loophole is closed, very clever accountants open another.
The system is quite simple if you do not look for a way of paying less of your fair share.

this is not a loophole. practically every single self employed individual in the country pay themselves this way. it is perfectly legal. it is tax efficient - why is tax avoidance even being mentioned?

Because it is 'tax avoidance' and not 'tax evasion'

End result for both is the same, except you won't go to prison for paying less tax under 'tax avoidance'

Makes it a loophole.

.

[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]GeneralGrb[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]andyh[/bold] wrote:
“Until the system is simplified, people will continue to look for – and find – ways to minimise their tax bill. Politicians need to fix the system, not look for loopholes.” Precisely.[/p][/quote]Problem is that as a loophole is closed, very clever accountants open another.
The system is quite simple if you do not look for a way of paying less of your fair share.[/p][/quote]this is not a loophole. practically every single self employed individual in the country pay themselves this way. it is perfectly legal. it is tax efficient - why is tax avoidance even being mentioned?[/p][/quote]Because it is 'tax avoidance' and not 'tax evasion'
End result for both is the same, except you won't go to prison for paying less tax under 'tax avoidance'
Makes it a loophole.
.sinister footwear

andyh wrote:
“Until the system is simplified, people will continue to look for – and find – ways to minimise their tax bill. Politicians need to fix the system, not look for loopholes.” Precisely.

Problem is that as a loophole is closed, very clever accountants open another.
The system is quite simple if you do not look for a way of paying less of your fair share.

this is not a loophole. practically every single self employed individual in the country pay themselves this way. it is perfectly legal. it is tax efficient - why is tax avoidance even being mentioned?

Because it is 'tax avoidance' and not 'tax evasion'

End result for both is the same, except you won't go to prison for paying less tax under 'tax avoidance'

Makes it a loophole.

.

It is not a loophole. It is the way that businesses are taxed.

[quote][p][bold]sinister footwear[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]GeneralGrb[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]andyh[/bold] wrote:
“Until the system is simplified, people will continue to look for – and find – ways to minimise their tax bill. Politicians need to fix the system, not look for loopholes.” Precisely.[/p][/quote]Problem is that as a loophole is closed, very clever accountants open another.
The system is quite simple if you do not look for a way of paying less of your fair share.[/p][/quote]this is not a loophole. practically every single self employed individual in the country pay themselves this way. it is perfectly legal. it is tax efficient - why is tax avoidance even being mentioned?[/p][/quote]Because it is 'tax avoidance' and not 'tax evasion'
End result for both is the same, except you won't go to prison for paying less tax under 'tax avoidance'
Makes it a loophole.
.[/p][/quote]It is not a loophole. It is the way that businesses are taxed.mikepaterson

andyh wrote: “Until the system is simplified, people will continue to look for – and find – ways to minimise their tax bill. Politicians need to fix the system, not look for loopholes.” Precisely.

Problem is that as a loophole is closed, very clever accountants open another. The system is quite simple if you do not look for a way of paying less of your fair share.

this is not a loophole. practically every single self employed individual in the country pay themselves this way. it is perfectly legal. it is tax efficient - why is tax avoidance even being mentioned?

UKIP leader has previously stated - people who avoid tax are the “common enemy”

So although you may think avoidance even if legal is ok Mr Farage doesn't, yet he appears to contradict himself by doing the same thing that is &quot;a problem". So why would we trust him on other issues?

You are getting confused. Farage is absolutely against the practices of such as Amazon, Starbucks and Google who arrange their affairs (legally) to pay tax in different countries than where the money is earned. Farage's company pays UK Tax at the appropriate rate unlike those other companies!

[quote][p][bold]GeneralGrb[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]GeneralGrb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andyh[/bold] wrote: “Until the system is simplified, people will continue to look for – and find – ways to minimise their tax bill. Politicians need to fix the system, not look for loopholes.” Precisely.[/p][/quote]Problem is that as a loophole is closed, very clever accountants open another. The system is quite simple if you do not look for a way of paying less of your fair share.[/p][/quote]this is not a loophole. practically every single self employed individual in the country pay themselves this way. it is perfectly legal. it is tax efficient - why is tax avoidance even being mentioned?[/p][/quote]UKIP leader has previously stated - people who avoid tax are the “common enemy”
and branded rich people and successful companies avoiding tax “a problem”.
So although you may think avoidance even if legal is ok Mr Farage doesn't, yet he appears to contradict himself by doing the same thing that is "a problem". So why would we trust him on other issues?[/p][/quote]You are getting confused. Farage is absolutely against the practices of such as Amazon, Starbucks and Google who arrange their affairs (legally) to pay tax in different countries than where the money is earned. Farage's company pays UK Tax at the appropriate rate unlike those other companies!mikepaterson

The Echo, once again, seem to try and stir up a hornets nest only to find the hornets have left the building.
If the Echo really want to join in with smear campaigns they really ought to learn how to do it properly.
As has already been pointed out, what Mr Farage is doing is nothing more than business. The same way thousands upon thousand of other individuals are doing business up and down the country, every single day of the year.

The Echo, once again, seem to try and stir up a hornets nest only to find the hornets have left the building.
If the Echo really want to join in with smear campaigns they really ought to learn how to do it properly.
As has already been pointed out, what Mr Farage is doing is nothing more than business. The same way thousands upon thousand of other individuals are doing business up and down the country, every single day of the year.emcee

Most people seem to be missing 2 important points.
1) He owes other people £21,000. These could be smaller businesses who are reliant on up to date payments for their existence. We don't know who they are but the fact is he doesn't pay his bills on time. Therefore he is not trustworthy to deliver on what he says.
2) He DOES owe the HMRC £125,6500 in unpaid taxes! What he does in declaring tax via another company is irrelevant at this time. Why are the HMRC not taking him to court like they do for other businesses eg our very own SUFC, and individuals who they hound and threaten. Ever had a threatening letter from HMRC for a few hundred pounds? I've see a few from people who are just trying to survive with a few pounds.The HMRC goes for the easy target.
THIS is where the outcry should be. The loophole stuff can be dealt with in due course.
Pay your dues Nigel.....and pay your debts to others too.

Most people seem to be missing 2 important points.
1) He owes other people £21,000. These could be smaller businesses who are reliant on up to date payments for their existence. We don't know who they are but the fact is he doesn't pay his bills on time. Therefore he is not trustworthy to deliver on what he says.
2) He DOES owe the HMRC £125,6500 in unpaid taxes! What he does in declaring tax via another company is irrelevant at this time. Why are the HMRC not taking him to court like they do for other businesses eg our very own SUFC, and individuals who they hound and threaten. Ever had a threatening letter from HMRC for a few hundred pounds? I've see a few from people who are just trying to survive with a few pounds.The HMRC goes for the easy target.
THIS is where the outcry should be. The loophole stuff can be dealt with in due course.
Pay your dues Nigel.....and pay your debts to others too.the citizen

the citizen wrote:
Most people seem to be missing 2 important points. 1) He owes other people £21,000. These could be smaller businesses who are reliant on up to date payments for their existence. We don't know who they are but the fact is he doesn't pay his bills on time. Therefore he is not trustworthy to deliver on what he says. 2) He DOES owe the HMRC £125,6500 in unpaid taxes! What he does in declaring tax via another company is irrelevant at this time. Why are the HMRC not taking him to court like they do for other businesses eg our very own SUFC, and individuals who they hound and threaten. Ever had a threatening letter from HMRC for a few hundred pounds? I've see a few from people who are just trying to survive with a few pounds.The HMRC goes for the easy target. THIS is where the outcry should be. The loophole stuff can be dealt with in due course. Pay your dues Nigel.....and pay your debts to others too.

1) It is his company (not him personally) that owe creditors (i.e other companies) and the article fails to say how many creditors there are. Does he owe 21,000 companies a pound each?

2) Try reading the article, his company already has an agreement to pay HMRC the debt which it owes. Again this is corporation tax not his personal tax. Every limited company in the country operates with these same rules. The directors are not personally liable for the debts of the company.

[quote][p][bold]the citizen[/bold] wrote:
Most people seem to be missing 2 important points. 1) He owes other people £21,000. These could be smaller businesses who are reliant on up to date payments for their existence. We don't know who they are but the fact is he doesn't pay his bills on time. Therefore he is not trustworthy to deliver on what he says. 2) He DOES owe the HMRC £125,6500 in unpaid taxes! What he does in declaring tax via another company is irrelevant at this time. Why are the HMRC not taking him to court like they do for other businesses eg our very own SUFC, and individuals who they hound and threaten. Ever had a threatening letter from HMRC for a few hundred pounds? I've see a few from people who are just trying to survive with a few pounds.The HMRC goes for the easy target. THIS is where the outcry should be. The loophole stuff can be dealt with in due course. Pay your dues Nigel.....and pay your debts to others too.[/p][/quote]1) It is his company (not him personally) that owe creditors (i.e other companies) and the article fails to say how many creditors there are. Does he owe 21,000 companies a pound each?
2) Try reading the article, his company already has an agreement to pay HMRC the debt which it owes. Again this is corporation tax not his personal tax. Every limited company in the country operates with these same rules. The directors are not personally liable for the debts of the company.Alekhine

the citizen wrote:
Most people seem to be missing 2 important points. 1) He owes other people £21,000. These could be smaller businesses who are reliant on up to date payments for their existence. We don't know who they are but the fact is he doesn't pay his bills on time. Therefore he is not trustworthy to deliver on what he says. 2) He DOES owe the HMRC £125,6500 in unpaid taxes! What he does in declaring tax via another company is irrelevant at this time. Why are the HMRC not taking him to court like they do for other businesses eg our very own SUFC, and individuals who they hound and threaten. Ever had a threatening letter from HMRC for a few hundred pounds? I've see a few from people who are just trying to survive with a few pounds.The HMRC goes for the easy target. THIS is where the outcry should be. The loophole stuff can be dealt with in due course. Pay your dues Nigel.....and pay your debts to others too.

1) It is his company (not him personally) that owe creditors (i.e other companies) and the article fails to say how many creditors there are. Does he owe 21,000 companies a pound each?

2) Try reading the article, his company already has an agreement to pay HMRC the debt which it owes. Again this is corporation tax not his personal tax. Every limited company in the country operates with these same rules. The directors are not personally liable for the debts of the company.

Unbelievable!!!. Please do not get work as a Tax Collector.....
1) "it's not him it's his company.......... what????? On what planet does this mean it's ok? The company IS him. HE decides to pay or not pay his company's taxes. I KNOW he - sorry, his company - IS paying them off, but he is paying them off because he (they) are in debt to HMRC because he - sorry, his company - did NOT pay them when he (they) should have!!
2) It does not matter if it is one or 21,000 creditors...they are owed money by Farage.
Conclusion.....
1) he is a bad tax payer, he does not pay his company's taxes on time like the rest of us are required to = hypocrite and untrustworthy
2) He is happy to let others be owed monies = untrustworthy businessman
Hardly a great man of the people! Keep him away from parliament - there are enough hypocrites in there already, we don't need another one!

[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]the citizen[/bold] wrote:
Most people seem to be missing 2 important points. 1) He owes other people £21,000. These could be smaller businesses who are reliant on up to date payments for their existence. We don't know who they are but the fact is he doesn't pay his bills on time. Therefore he is not trustworthy to deliver on what he says. 2) He DOES owe the HMRC £125,6500 in unpaid taxes! What he does in declaring tax via another company is irrelevant at this time. Why are the HMRC not taking him to court like they do for other businesses eg our very own SUFC, and individuals who they hound and threaten. Ever had a threatening letter from HMRC for a few hundred pounds? I've see a few from people who are just trying to survive with a few pounds.The HMRC goes for the easy target. THIS is where the outcry should be. The loophole stuff can be dealt with in due course. Pay your dues Nigel.....and pay your debts to others too.[/p][/quote]1) It is his company (not him personally) that owe creditors (i.e other companies) and the article fails to say how many creditors there are. Does he owe 21,000 companies a pound each?
2) Try reading the article, his company already has an agreement to pay HMRC the debt which it owes. Again this is corporation tax not his personal tax. Every limited company in the country operates with these same rules. The directors are not personally liable for the debts of the company.[/p][/quote]Unbelievable!!!. Please do not get work as a Tax Collector.....
1) "it's not him it's his company.......... what????? On what planet does this mean it's ok? The company IS him. HE decides to pay or not pay his company's taxes. I KNOW he - sorry, his company - IS paying them off, but he is paying them off because he (they) are in debt to HMRC because he - sorry, his company - did NOT pay them when he (they) should have!!
2) It does not matter if it is one or 21,000 creditors...they are owed money by Farage.
Conclusion.....
1) he is a bad tax payer, he does not pay his company's taxes on time like the rest of us are required to = hypocrite and untrustworthy
2) He is happy to let others be owed monies = untrustworthy businessman
Hardly a great man of the people! Keep him away from parliament - there are enough hypocrites in there already, we don't need another one!the citizen

the citizen wrote:
Most people seem to be missing 2 important points. 1) He owes other people £21,000. These could be smaller businesses who are reliant on up to date payments for their existence. We don't know who they are but the fact is he doesn't pay his bills on time. Therefore he is not trustworthy to deliver on what he says. 2) He DOES owe the HMRC £125,6500 in unpaid taxes! What he does in declaring tax via another company is irrelevant at this time. Why are the HMRC not taking him to court like they do for other businesses eg our very own SUFC, and individuals who they hound and threaten. Ever had a threatening letter from HMRC for a few hundred pounds? I've see a few from people who are just trying to survive with a few pounds.The HMRC goes for the easy target. THIS is where the outcry should be. The loophole stuff can be dealt with in due course. Pay your dues Nigel.....and pay your debts to others too.

1) It is his company (not him personally) that owe creditors (i.e other companies) and the article fails to say how many creditors there are. Does he owe 21,000 companies a pound each?

2) Try reading the article, his company already has an agreement to pay HMRC the debt which it owes. Again this is corporation tax not his personal tax. Every limited company in the country operates with these same rules. The directors are not personally liable for the debts of the company.

Unbelievable!!!. Please do not get work as a Tax Collector.....
1) &quot;it's not him it's his company.......... what????? On what planet does this mean it's ok? The company IS him. HE decides to pay or not pay his company's taxes. I KNOW he - sorry, his company - IS paying them off, but he is paying them off because he (they) are in debt to HMRC because he - sorry, his company - did NOT pay them when he (they) should have!!
2) It does not matter if it is one or 21,000 creditors...they are owed money by Farage.
Conclusion.....
1) he is a bad tax payer, he does not pay his company's taxes on time like the rest of us are required to = hypocrite and untrustworthy
2) He is happy to let others be owed monies = untrustworthy businessman
Hardly a great man of the people! Keep him away from parliament - there are enough hypocrites in there already, we don't need another one!

Better change the rules that apply to every limited company in the country then. Good luck with that.

[quote][p][bold]the citizen[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]the citizen[/bold] wrote:
Most people seem to be missing 2 important points. 1) He owes other people £21,000. These could be smaller businesses who are reliant on up to date payments for their existence. We don't know who they are but the fact is he doesn't pay his bills on time. Therefore he is not trustworthy to deliver on what he says. 2) He DOES owe the HMRC £125,6500 in unpaid taxes! What he does in declaring tax via another company is irrelevant at this time. Why are the HMRC not taking him to court like they do for other businesses eg our very own SUFC, and individuals who they hound and threaten. Ever had a threatening letter from HMRC for a few hundred pounds? I've see a few from people who are just trying to survive with a few pounds.The HMRC goes for the easy target. THIS is where the outcry should be. The loophole stuff can be dealt with in due course. Pay your dues Nigel.....and pay your debts to others too.[/p][/quote]1) It is his company (not him personally) that owe creditors (i.e other companies) and the article fails to say how many creditors there are. Does he owe 21,000 companies a pound each?
2) Try reading the article, his company already has an agreement to pay HMRC the debt which it owes. Again this is corporation tax not his personal tax. Every limited company in the country operates with these same rules. The directors are not personally liable for the debts of the company.[/p][/quote]Unbelievable!!!. Please do not get work as a Tax Collector.....
1) "it's not him it's his company.......... what????? On what planet does this mean it's ok? The company IS him. HE decides to pay or not pay his company's taxes. I KNOW he - sorry, his company - IS paying them off, but he is paying them off because he (they) are in debt to HMRC because he - sorry, his company - did NOT pay them when he (they) should have!!
2) It does not matter if it is one or 21,000 creditors...they are owed money by Farage.
Conclusion.....
1) he is a bad tax payer, he does not pay his company's taxes on time like the rest of us are required to = hypocrite and untrustworthy
2) He is happy to let others be owed monies = untrustworthy businessman
Hardly a great man of the people! Keep him away from parliament - there are enough hypocrites in there already, we don't need another one![/p][/quote]Better change the rules that apply to every limited company in the country then. Good luck with that.Alekhine

the citizen wrote:
Most people seem to be missing 2 important points. 1) He owes other people £21,000. These could be smaller businesses who are reliant on up to date payments for their existence. We don't know who they are but the fact is he doesn't pay his bills on time. Therefore he is not trustworthy to deliver on what he says. 2) He DOES owe the HMRC £125,6500 in unpaid taxes! What he does in declaring tax via another company is irrelevant at this time. Why are the HMRC not taking him to court like they do for other businesses eg our very own SUFC, and individuals who they hound and threaten. Ever had a threatening letter from HMRC for a few hundred pounds? I've see a few from people who are just trying to survive with a few pounds.The HMRC goes for the easy target. THIS is where the outcry should be. The loophole stuff can be dealt with in due course. Pay your dues Nigel.....and pay your debts to others too.

1) It is his company (not him personally) that owe creditors (i.e other companies) and the article fails to say how many creditors there are. Does he owe 21,000 companies a pound each?

2) Try reading the article, his company already has an agreement to pay HMRC the debt which it owes. Again this is corporation tax not his personal tax. Every limited company in the country operates with these same rules. The directors are not personally liable for the debts of the company.

Unbelievable!!!. Please do not get work as a Tax Collector.....
1) &quot;it's not him it's his company.......... what????? On what planet does this mean it's ok? The company IS him. HE decides to pay or not pay his company's taxes. I KNOW he - sorry, his company - IS paying them off, but he is paying them off because he (they) are in debt to HMRC because he - sorry, his company - did NOT pay them when he (they) should have!!
2) It does not matter if it is one or 21,000 creditors...they are owed money by Farage.
Conclusion.....
1) he is a bad tax payer, he does not pay his company's taxes on time like the rest of us are required to = hypocrite and untrustworthy
2) He is happy to let others be owed monies = untrustworthy businessman
Hardly a great man of the people! Keep him away from parliament - there are enough hypocrites in there already, we don't need another one!

It is quite clear you are either an employee or are out of work. You do not have a clue about this.

[quote][p][bold]the citizen[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]the citizen[/bold] wrote:
Most people seem to be missing 2 important points. 1) He owes other people £21,000. These could be smaller businesses who are reliant on up to date payments for their existence. We don't know who they are but the fact is he doesn't pay his bills on time. Therefore he is not trustworthy to deliver on what he says. 2) He DOES owe the HMRC £125,6500 in unpaid taxes! What he does in declaring tax via another company is irrelevant at this time. Why are the HMRC not taking him to court like they do for other businesses eg our very own SUFC, and individuals who they hound and threaten. Ever had a threatening letter from HMRC for a few hundred pounds? I've see a few from people who are just trying to survive with a few pounds.The HMRC goes for the easy target. THIS is where the outcry should be. The loophole stuff can be dealt with in due course. Pay your dues Nigel.....and pay your debts to others too.[/p][/quote]1) It is his company (not him personally) that owe creditors (i.e other companies) and the article fails to say how many creditors there are. Does he owe 21,000 companies a pound each?
2) Try reading the article, his company already has an agreement to pay HMRC the debt which it owes. Again this is corporation tax not his personal tax. Every limited company in the country operates with these same rules. The directors are not personally liable for the debts of the company.[/p][/quote]Unbelievable!!!. Please do not get work as a Tax Collector.....
1) "it's not him it's his company.......... what????? On what planet does this mean it's ok? The company IS him. HE decides to pay or not pay his company's taxes. I KNOW he - sorry, his company - IS paying them off, but he is paying them off because he (they) are in debt to HMRC because he - sorry, his company - did NOT pay them when he (they) should have!!
2) It does not matter if it is one or 21,000 creditors...they are owed money by Farage.
Conclusion.....
1) he is a bad tax payer, he does not pay his company's taxes on time like the rest of us are required to = hypocrite and untrustworthy
2) He is happy to let others be owed monies = untrustworthy businessman
Hardly a great man of the people! Keep him away from parliament - there are enough hypocrites in there already, we don't need another one![/p][/quote]It is quite clear you are either an employee or are out of work. You do not have a clue about this.mikepaterson